1 Rule 10(b) of the R ules of the Court of Appe als of Tennessee states as follows:
Memorandum Opinio n. The Co urt, with the concurrence of all judges parti cipating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modi fy the actions of the t rial cou rt by memora

ndum opinion when a formal opini on would have no precedent

ial val ue. When a case

is deci ded by memorandum opi n ion it shall be designa ted "MEMORANDU M OPINION," shall not be publish ed, and shall not b e cited or re lied on for an y reason in a subsequent unre lated case. 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON May 16, 2000 Ses sion LINDA KAY LOVELL GAGE v. RILEY GAGE, JR. An Appeal from the Chancery Court for Crockett County No. 7571 George R. Ellis, Chancellor

No. W1999-01513-COA-R3-CV - Filed April 26, 2001

This is a divorce case. The wife filed for divorce approximately fourteen months after she moved outof the marital home. The husband filed an answer and counter-complaint for divorce. The trial court granted the divorce to the wife and awarded her half of the value of the husband's pension and alimony in futuro . Husband appeal s. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appe al as of Right; Judgme

nt of the Chancery Co

urt is Affirmed.
H OLLY K IRBY L ILLARD , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W. FRANK C RAWFORD , P.J., W.S. and A LAN E. H IGHERS , J., joined. Harold R. Gunn, Humboldt, Tennessee, for the appellant, Riley Gage, Jr. Jere B. Albright, Humboldt, Tennessee, for the appellee, Linda Kay Lovell Gage.

MEMORANDUM OP

INION 1
This is a divorce case. Plaintiff/Appellee Linda Kay Lovell Gage ("Wife ") a nd Defendant/Appellant Riley Gage, Jr. were married in 1977. Wife i s 100% physic ally di sable d. In August 1997, Wife was physically attacked by the parties’ son. Husband responded to this incident byte lling Wife “she sh

ould have kept her

mouth shut.” Wife the

n left the marital residence

. Approximately

fourteen months later, Wife filed a complaint for div orce, alleging irreconcilable-2-

differences and inappropriate marital conduct. Husband filed an answer and counter-complaint for divorce, also alleging inappropriate marital conduct and seeking attorney ’s fees. The trial court found that the parties’ separation resulted from the

ir son’s attack against Wife andHusband’s subseq

uent admonition tha

t she should

have kept her mou

th shut. The trial c

ourt also found that Husband had a s ked Wife to remove her belongings from the marital residence so that another woman could move into the home. The trial court found that Husband provided no support to Wife during their period of separation, despite the fact tha t sh e is tot all y dis abl ed. Con seq uen tly, the trial court granted the divorce to Wife, and awarded her, inter alia , half of

Husband’s pension andseventy-five dollars per week in alimony

in futuro , until her death or remarriage. Husband filed motions for additional findings of fact and for a new trial. These motions were denied. Husband now appeals.
On appeal, Husband arguesthat the trial cour t erred in award

ing Wife the divor

ce because s he abandon ed him without justification. He argues that the trial court erred in awarding Wife alimony because he was without

fault. He conten

ds that the trial co

urt erred in

awarding Wife h

alf of his pension, because Wife did not include it in her complaint. The trial court’s fin

ding of fault in th

is case hinged o

n its assessment of t

he parties’ cred ibi lit y. The trial court is in the best position to assess the demeanor and vera cit y o f the witnesses, and its determinations of credibi lity are accorded great weight on appeal. Whitaker v.Whitaker , 957 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977 ). We find no e rror in the trial court’s finding that Husband was at fault in the divorce, or in its grant of the divorce to Wife. Husbandalso argues that the trial court erred in awarding alimony to Wife and in awarding her half of Husband’s pension. A trial court is afforded wide discretion when awarding alimony and dividing marital property. See Hanover v. Hanover , 775 S.W.2d 612, 617 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989); Ford v. Ford , 952 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). An award of alimony sh

ould be reversed only in an instance in which the trial court has “manifestly abused” its discretion. Hano v er , 775 S.W.2d at 617. A trial court’s distribution of marital property is given “great weig ht” on appeal and will be presumed to be correct unl ess the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Ford , 952 S.W.2d at 826-27 Upon our review of the record, and based in part on our affirmance of the trial cour t’s finding of fault

against Husband

, we find no error

in the trial court’ s grant of alimon y in futuro to Wife. We also find no error in the trial court’s award of half of Husband’s pension to Wife.-3-

The decision of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are taxed to the appellant, Riley Gage, Jr. and his surety, for which execution may issue if necessar y.

___________________________________ HOLLY K. LI

LLARD, JUDGE